Hey, I've been taking a quick break, and I will be doing so for the a bit longer. I am excited at the direction Wikiquote is heading, however I would like to address a few thoughts on how things are being managed - and since you are THE admin I'll pick on you, nothing personal...

How are we doing with New Users; that is, when one creates a new account are they welcomed with a message as people are on Wikipedia saying check out these links and here is how you can help?

I'd like to add a concern about Wikiquote "Maintance". Could we change the official pages covering maintenance, like Wikiquote maintance, to the correct spelling? (If they're not protected and it's no more complicated than doing page moves, I'll be happy to do it.) It's a little embarrassing. ☺ — Jeff Q 01:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not at home, am linked up to the internet through a wireless network "hot spot", and don't have the battery charger for my Powerbook with me, so I will have to conserve power tonight, and can't give a full reply to everything, nor perhaps attend to all the corrections that are needed. I am hoping that simply editing the spelling on the linked pages to "maintenance" will be sufficient to correct some of the problems, but I am not sure of that. I am going to give it a try. ~ Kalki 05:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem of spelling seems to have been remedied sufficiently by the revisions that occurred. I have been far more busy with other things the last few weeks than I expected to be, and have not had as much time to work here as I had thought I would. Within the next few days I ought to have a bit more time to take care of a few things, but today and tomorrow will probably just see slight activity from me here. ~ Kalki 23:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you about this while you were in an awkward situation. I hadn't realized it was such a straightforward change, else I would have done it myself. As it was, I fixed two errors myself, but apparently someone else did all the rest. If that was you, thanks! — Jeff Q 00:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unless I have missed some incidents, the most persistent SPAM vandal seems to have stopped marring our pages with ads, and if there is not any more abusive activity in the next day or two from any of the IP ranges that have been used, I intend to erase the notices I had posted on the talk pages of some of these IPs. It will probably be a day or two yet before I have the time to do this. ~ Kalki 23:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Why exactly do we keep the Current events page? It can easily be hidden (removed from the navigation menu) by replacing the content of MediaWiki:Currentevents with a single - (minus) sign. That's what we did on the Polish Wikiquote and I think that that is, for now, the best possible option. If someone comes up with a good use for this page it can always be put back up. :) Does that sound reasonable? --TOR 11:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

About a year ago I created an automated queue for 'Selected anniversaries' on the English Wikipedia main page. Later I created a similar queue for the 'Today's featured article' section on the same wiki. The main difference being that the former cycles through the same 366 pages, while the later displays one page once. The pages are called upon and named like so:

This means that once each UTC day arrives, that the template for that day is displayed. In addition, it means that you can fill an entire week, month, whatever, in a single sitting and just sit back and let the software take care of the daily chore of updating. In the future, this system would also make it possible for a bot to fetch the quote of the day and add it with the Wikipedia featured article of the day as well as the selected anniversary of the day and email the result to mail:daily-article-l subscribers (a task currently done by hand and is thus spotty). If you would like such a system on this wiki, then just leave me a note on my talk page, and I will create it for you. --Maveric149 08:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done

Just update days at Wikiquote:Quote of the day/March 2015. When you are ready to make this go live, just replace {{Qotd}} on the Main Page with {{Wikiquote:Quote of the day/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}|color=#fff5f5}} . If you have any questions, then just ask. :) --Maveric149 21:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm pretty sure the content at Robert De Niro is wrong for this place. --mav

Howdy. I've been editing the X-Men page. The result looks pretty good to me, but I'm not sure it's up to a "higher standard" - thus am reluctant to remove the "needs cleanup" tag. I'd appreciate it if you, another adminstrator, or someone with more experience than me could look it over and make a decision. I know this isn't a high-priority matter and assume you have plenty of other things on your plate, so I won't look for results right away.

Also: is there a policy on profanity in quotes? I figure on posting mostly in Films; I hate to leave out every word that someone, somewhere might object to, but I don't want to create editing headaches for others (or get myself kicked off).

"Brief" response covered all my questions, so it was plenty - especially since, in retrospect, my subject matter was probably more appropriate for the village pump than an administrator. At the risk of being nosy - noticed my user page as one of the vandalism targets per JeffQ, above. My ignorance is probably showing here, but if I forgot to log in & made changes to the page, could it show up as "vandalism"? I'm assuming not, since I didn't visit the other pages he mentioned; no need to reply if I'm right (unless you have oodles of free time). Anyway - appreciate your time on prior questions. --RPickman 13:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted yet another spam vandalism, this one of List of films. But the server seems to have cached the vandalized page and won't give me the current one no matter how many times I refresh the page. Even wiping my browser cache and restarting the browser doesn't give me the correct page. (I know my reversion worked because if I edit the current page, I get the unvandalized version.) Do you know how to get this spam dislodged from the server? — Jeff Q(talk) 03:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I added a movie in the (working) edit page, and now the server returns the current page. — Jeff Q(talk) 03:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for a while, in case someone asked. I have no compelling desire for more authority, but I do want to be able to help out more. I've really noticed how Wikiquote is getting bigger and busier, and how this seems to encourage spam, vandalism, and creation of irrelevant or desultory pages. I think I could help out on those first three. (I'm coming around to your approach on leaving potentially useful stub pages in place.) As far as my connection, barring the occasional catastrophic equipment failure, I'm nearly always online, always with a broadband connection, and I do most of my work between 2100 and 0600, prime-time for maintenance stuff. As long as I had some solid guidelines and procedures to follow (whether Wikiquote-grown or imported from Wikipedia), I'd be happy to join the Sysop ranks. Thank you for the invitation. Let me know if the Powers That Be agree. — Jeff Q(talk) 21:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see I'm now a sysop. Thank you very much for your efforts and your vote of confidence. I hope Aphaia, Rmhermen, and I can take a good bit of the load off you! But then there'll be questions for the Bureaucrat… ☺ — Jeff Q(talk) 19:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No one demands perfection here, and I hope that you will grow more comfortable with things soon. That you are intent on helping the project grow, and have a proven will to act responsibly are definitely two of the things that matter most. Thanks again for your efforts. ~ Kalki 00:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's imperfection... and then there's needing to ask another user where some symbols appear on a keyboard.

The whole idea of the Internet is still pretty mysterious (and smacks vaguely of sorcery) to me. Wiki-wise, I only recently puzzled out how to insert things like spoiler alerts & still usually need multiple tries to set up a link. Until I have a better handle on basic mechanics, I wouldn't be much use as an admin; in fact, making me one might almost be an insult to Jeff Q, who has been spoon-feeding me since I started here. It's always nice to be recognized, and I remain grateful for the offer. I'm just not ready at this time. --RPickman 01:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Running the show" may have been the wrong phrase to use. Didn't mean to make you sound dictatorial or everyone else sound irrelevant. Just meant that you seem to be handling the sysop job mostly solo. --RPickman 18:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just a brief note of apology on my relative lack of activity here today; The last two days I have been so busy with other things, that I have only had a few opportunities to even check in here, and very little sleep. I should have a bit more time for the wiki after tomorrow. Right now I'm planning to nap for about an hour. ~ Kalki 21:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I woke up after about an hours sleep, but am still too busy to do much here. As an indication of how tired I was: I couldn't even think of the words "apology" or "apologies" as some of the words that I had wanted to use, before my brief nap. I'm a bit more able to put thoughts and words together now. ~ Kalki 02:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your straightforward solution to the Azerbaijani proverbs issue, but I'm concerned that the resulting article's history provides no credit for Tabib, who created nearly all the content (not to mention the formatting). I was under the impression that that was one reason behind Meta-Wiki's rather complicated process for preserving histories during page moves. Did I misunderstand it? Do we consider that too elaborate a process for the nascent Wikiquote? If so, I'm hoping that my Talk:Azerbaijani proverbs#Credits posting is sufficient for GFDL purposes. (I know Tabib is credited in the old article's history, but I'm not clear on whether that's enough.) — Jeff Q(talk) 21:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I found this page you wrote but could not figure out what it is for or if it is still necessary. Rmhermen 14:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It used to be one of the headers of the "Recent Changes" page, made when many new users weren't familiar with the wiki concepts. I think it might have gotten "lost" during some software changes. It is no longer actually needed at all; the current one that Aphaia has recently developed is much better, and more useful. ~ Kalki 18:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I had anticipated that I would be busier than normal, and with activities increasing here I knew that I wouldn't always be able to counter any vandals as swiftly as I had done in the past. I had looked forward to having more admins around, but all of you have certainly exceeded my expectations, and even in the first week, have begun to improve many things immensely, taking care of some things I had long neglected, forgotten about, or of which I had been entirely unaware. Everyone has been so active and engaged in developing things here I feel almost ready to "retire", (but I don't plan to any time soon). I remain a bit busier than normal with other things though, and my activity will probably be reduced here for a while yet. Previously I was somewhat obsessive, checking in on things at least every few hours, and nearly every chance I could get when away from home, but now I can feel comfortable just checking in a few times a day. ~ Kalki 18:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kalki, I need some advice. I just came across a very strange set of edits, and I'm not sure what to do about the users.

Three anonymous users apparently created and contributed to an article for Drinking (and its talk page), posting juvenile "quotes" unrelated to drinking (except possibly as a demonstration that they had been doing it while editing). I tagged the article for speedy deletion, as it was patent nonsense and appeared to be vandalism.

However, reviewing these anons' other edits turned up some interesting connections. 70.32.148.108 did nothing more than a "Drinking" and a "Talk:Drinking" posting, and 69.170.114.159 did four consecutive edits on Drinking, both exclusively operating today, but 205.188.116.195 has been rather more eclectic over a longer period of time:

(15 Sep 2004) Added some useful, some irrelevant, and some improperly placed incendiary material to Abortion.

(06 Apr 2005) Added an apparently on-topic but personal quote to Drinking 24 minutes after the page was created.

The case of Adam Margolin is especially interesting. Andreas C's only contributions to Wikiquote were to create this article, object to its listing on WQ:VFD (now archived) less than two hours later, de-link it from Wikipedia, and make a second point for non-deletion, all within about 5 hours on 21 Nov 2004, after which he was never heard from again. "205" managed to add a quote to the Margolin article 9 minutes after it was created, strongly suggesting that, if these two aren't the same person, they at least know each other.

Now, on 6 Apr 2005, in the space of 24 minutes, "205" and two one-topic anons create and build a short article that consists entirely of scatalogical garbage, except from one on-topic quote from a (another?) non-notable person. Given that "Adam Margolin" is supposedly a college student, this sound very much like a sophomoric prank by the same students. I think Wikiquote is being punk'd by three immature kids. However, the evidence is circumstantial. I'm not sure whether to block these jokers or not, and I'm annoyed enough right now not to trust myself to compose a neutral Talk page message. If you don't mind, might I ask what you would do in this situation? I suspect there's no hurry; 205's pattern suggests this only happens on the occasional drunken dorm-party night. ☺ — Jeff Q(talk) 09:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

205.188.116.195 is an address used by AOL and thus one that is shared by many people, so the variety of edits isn't suprising. 69.170.114.159, and 70.32.148.108 both belong to Adelphia cable of Pennsylvania, and they might also be shared addresses, but used by a relatively small group of people.

I usually use the search tools available at American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) or Reséaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) to find out the owners of IPs I'm curious about. Other major Internet Organizations (most of which I've not looked into) can be found at this page

Thanks for erasing the SPAM last night by the way. Previously I would set long 30 day blocks on some of the worst Spam senders, with messages to addressed them, but these Spammers know that they are nuisances, and know that they can simply evade most blocks so I seldom bother with addressing messages to the spammers anymore: I just block them. I have not yet been irritated enough to report any of the jerks directly to the IP Service Providers that they work through, though I have been tempted at times, and even then actually catching them could be an elusive task. ~ Kalki

Aphaia, Kalki, Rmhermen: I'd like to ask you folks to review the Reirom VfD. I think we've given it enough time for a decision, especially since the Wikipedia article has been deleted as well. I'd do it myself, but I've been too involved in researching its legitimacy and policing for sockpuppets and now forged signatures (two of which I just removed). I'd like a more neutral admin to consider its state. Thanks. — Jeff Q(talk) 02:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on places to lookup IP addresses. I haven't had a chance to check them out yet — my plate's getting pretty full with all the stuff I've foolishly offered to do ☺ — but I've been wanting that info for a while and just haven't taken the time to ask about it. Sometime down the road, I'd like to start chasing after folks who spam, not just for the Wikis but in general, with some kind of form-email to send to the various abuse@whatever-provider.coms, to get providers to police the abuse coming out of their systems. — Jeff Q(talk) 02:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a problem with the current lynx template that is only noticeable when the page text above it comes in two pieces; e.g., when an External Links section has both the standard bulleted list and a {{wikipedia}} tag. If the left piece is shorter than the right (which often happens), the lynx text get smushed up underneath the left text, rather than forming its own page-width line. I brought this up at Template talk:Lynx, but no one commented. Do you foresee any problems if I add the following clearing break to the top of the template:

<br clear="all"/>

This gets around the problem, as has been demonstrated in many pages that it's been added to manually. This would remove the need to add this kludgy HTML to each page. — Jeff Q(talk) 23:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, a better solution would be to include the lynx text in the overall Wikiquote page framework, but I'm not inclined to go looking for how that might be done until I've completed far more pressing things (probably not for months). — Jeff Q(talk) 23:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At one point I had actually thought of trying what you suggest, but hadn't got around to doing so, and I do think it would be a good idea. I also agree that the links should probably be in the page framework itself, and thought for a time that a developer's work would be needed. I now think their might be templates we could edit, but I too am ignorant of precisely how to get this done, if indeed we can. ~ Kalki 00:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've done the lynx change and edited all of the articles using it (I think) that had the manual break in them. (I needed to do some mindless work for a while. I'm back to more thoughtful maintenance now. ☺) Jeff Q(talk) 02:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been assuming that there's some kind of process in place to delete pages that had block-compress errors during deletion, presumably to be done either automatically or by a developer when the wiki software is updated. But is this true? I also just noticed that Wikipedia has a Block-compress errors log for such articles, but I haven't found a Wikiquote equivalent. Is there one here? Do we need to create a log for this, or can we direct a developer's attention to our Category:Pending deletions? (Wikipedia has both the category and the log, which just sounds like an opportunity for trouble to me.) Thank you for any insight you can provide. Jeff Q(talk) 03:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I usually try to find something on such articles, rather than delete them. I don't always have the time lately though. I wasn't planning to, but I think I'll use what info I've gathered to start an article on him at Wikipedia. ~ Kalki 02:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just now, I protected your user page and your talk. PusAss vandal, or assumingly WoW moved mine nad Jni's pages. I think the sysops' pages will be most frequently targetted and the effect and confusion from their move on a bad faith is worst to the community, when an editor ask a sysop a help. If you think my protection is inappropriate, please unprotect your pages. I think the pages of other three most active Wikiquoters would be better to protect from move, too, specially if they request. --Aphaia 08:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I very much appreciate your confidence in me. I'll try not to break anything with my new powers! Please let me know if you see something I should (or shouldn't) be doing as an admin. Regards, jni 06:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I guess you've known it already, but I think it is better for all of us to make it clear so I put you a question. Did you read Elian's this proposal? How do you think it? I would like to know your idea because you are (in my opinion) the best candidate for this role on this community (one of longlife editors, involved into the community and administrative issues, already volunteering as a Wikimedia Embassy member, mother tongue speaker of the project language and so on). --Aphaia 03:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that I would be the best candidate for such an idea. Though I intend to always be around on at least a daily basis, the time that I can spend here has diminished considerably lately. I am becoming involved in many other things that demand my attention, and I actually am not someone who has normally been prone to engaging in a great deal of dialog. I agree with Jeff and you that we definitely need more administrators here, because activity is increasing rapidly, and the small group of us who are currently involved have a great deal to cope with. I am not sure that I could be relied upon to be involved in many policy examinations and development any more than I currently am. There are a few ideas I have, and might be able to propose in the next week or so, but there are many things on my agenda, and I have not had the time to develop many of them so much as I would like. ~ Kalki 21:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kalki...I have been unable to log in for about a week. I had a similar problem with Wiktionary and it was solved merely by one of the admin looking into it...I don't think there are any blocks involved. Could you check and see if there are any on my ISP or User name (Alan J Franklin)or numerical addy --69.148.235.35 18:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) ...Thank you and please reply to aj.franklin at gmail dot com ... or the user page for Alan J Franklin ... have a great weekend!

Thank you for your answer Kalki. I am using the Firefox (Mozilla) browser, but I have also tried IE with no success. Alan J Franklin --69.148.235.35 15:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. A while ago, you thought about a new system for QOTD which would have more community participation. I have asked both on the relevant talk page and on the Village Pump if there is anything new happening about it, but you must not have noticed it. I would greatly appreciate it if it was possible to re-open the discussion on this, and think about a new method for QOTD selection. Thanks in advance, MosheZadka 06:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, Hello Kalki, I have currently no idea which version is better, but in general it is a good idea before a massive change to build a consensus to the change. Not only with approval in silence but if possible, clear supprt.

Anyway if you convinces the former version was better, you could wait for other editors, or just report it on WQ:VP, when your version was reverted. I wonder what made you so hurry. Anyway I protected the page and would like to keep it so for 24 hours to promote discussion on the talk. In my opinion, "revert to revert" is not so much productive and not matchs you a good editor. Thank you for your attention. --Aphaia 21:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello Kalki, there are some disputes on VfD, and as for Dr.Crane and Jokes, it is obvious no one (except one as for Dr.Crane) supports to merely keep them, but because of lack of consensus, I am personally afraid we cannot take any action. If I recally correctly, you haven't shown your opinions about them. Would you like to share your idea, please? --Aphaia 29 June 2005 23:55 (UTC)

I was going to invite others to look at my analysis anyways, but Aphaia has suggested this:

"I would like you to consider if it is a good idea to invite other editors to read through over 100K talk. In my opinion, it is a sort of burden and shut out most of editors. And I suspect who is now interested in this issue. --Aphaia 5 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)" [1], and I shall do as asked.

You are invited by me, Kalki, to look at my analysis at: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#Analysis_and_proposed_solutions and see if all the problems are identified, and if not, add one or two. Also, please notice that you can post your proposed solutions below. Afterwards, we can briefly discuss and then vote on different ideas. Don't worry: I addressed all concerns, but if you don't believe me, check it out. Sorry for the length, but many people had many problems.

In conclusion, I have done all the research: Read my analysis, debate it, vote on it, and accept the vote -even if it goes against you; All will be well. Take my word for it. Have a nice day.--GordonWattsDotCom 5 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

You are now a sysop— welcome to the ranks of Wikiquote administrators. Your services to the project have already been extensive, as a few others have already noted, and I expect you will make very good use of the additional abilities. We seem to have a pretty good spanning of the globe with our sysops now, and hopefully this will help us keep many of the vandals from making very much of a mess before they are blocked. ~ Kalki 05:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to take great care as I am learning the ropes of administration. ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 08:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello Kalki, perhaps you could test the new Changing_username feature on me? My username is some strange artifact that was not mine originally... And I have way less than 5000 edits, less than 500 in fact. Do you see any problem with this, or would it be OK for you to do it? Sams 10:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to change my account name to "iddo999". Thank you very much. Sams 10:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, the capital letter at start is not a big deal, but it was nice to test. BTW I asked on irc on #wikimedia for a steward to do it (because perhaps I'd also want to change username for he.wikiquote), before I asked you, but they said that the local bureaucrat has to do it. As for re-creating the sams account, if I understood correctly the sams user/talk pages exist with redirect to my new account, but the sams account itself has been deleted, therefore if someone creates this account then he would have those user/talk redirect pages until he changes them... Works ok as it is, but it doesn't seem like a big deal to me either way, just that re-creating an account adds redundant data to the database, and I assume that no one would re-create an account with this name anyway. We could to leave it as it is so that we can wait and see if someone tries it, it's good to try to learn stuff from this first username change experiment:) Iddo999 11:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, infinite block is a good idea too:) Better than re-creating an account, I think... Iddo999 12:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, folks, would you like to discuss int on WQ:VP]? After changing username, re-create (and if necessary, blocking) seems to be the better way, because even after user name is changed, redirect from the former one to the newer one remains with many links from his or her former signature to the newer user page. Preventing potential impersonification, re-creating account and blocking would be better for us. --Aphaia 12:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Could you please comment at Wikiquote:Village_pump#Images on whether we should proceed with disabling uploads? Seems to me that deriving images from wikimedia commons is appropriate for wikiquote, because have no need for fair use images, and so disabling has several practical advantages. iddo999 22:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Kalki, could you explain why you moved the Ingmar Bergman "see also" for The Seventh Seal back to the top, given that we've been bring such older practices into line with current practice on both Wikiquote and Wikipedia? If it's to make it more visible, perhaps we can achieve this and also make the overall display parallel his other works by following another practice that I've seen in use: add a section for each quoted work, and place the link just under the appropriate heading for works with their own articles. In any case, I'd still like to have the standard "See also" where people can expect to find it. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 06:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Per the "Blenda" query at Talk:Ingmar Bergman, do you happen to have specific dates for the Sydsvenska issues whose quotes you added? Alternatively, do you have a source for the English translations that might be investigated for its source? Please respond at Talk:IB if you do; presumably it will help "Blenda" fetch the original Swedish. Thanks a bunch! ~ Jeff Q(talk) 00:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clear which quote had the most support for today, and am rather distressed that you decided to use your preferred quote instead of the consensus candidate. If the new process is not to be a complete sham, the community consensus should prevail over one admin's preferences. 121a0012 04:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I realized that the entry for the Eisenhower quote was late, and if anyone had objected to its use in the couple of hours before the deadline, I would have deferred on that account, because I do think the TCP quote is a good one; but I thought the 60th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb was clearly a more notable event to commemorate than the birthday of Jon Postel, if a significant enough quote could be found. I didn't think the Dr. Strangelove quote was appropriate. There are many times already I have deferred to the clearly indicated preferences, even though they were not mine; this was a last minute decision, and I agree there is room for debate and further refinement of the selection processes. ~ Kalki 04:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I only had a few very rushed minutes to respond earlier to your comments, and missed some typos that I just fixed. I also have only a few minutes now, and had only a few minutes to make the final QotD selection for today— I simply made a snap judgment upon the matter. I had thought the Postel quote a good one, and still do, and would like to use it sooner than his next birthday, if possible. ~ Kalki 08:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you have missed the point. Either there is a process by which quotations are chosen, or it's up to the whim of an individual admin. You can't have it both ways. It's clear that you've already pissed off Jeff by your actions today. We have few enough editors on WQ as it is; to simply say "no, my opinion is more important than the community consensus" is liable to drive even more people away. Maybe you want your own private sandbox, but that's not what WQ is for. I would call it "abuse of admin discretion". 121a0012 16:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not exactly "pissed off". I removed my post-6-August votes because I take wiki voting very seriously, and don't believe it should be ignored without an objectively compelling reason that one can reasonably expect a consensus to support, and even then such dismissals are controversial. However, I also understand that we're experimenting with QotD voting, the very few participants thus far leave an opportunity for considerable personal judgment, and Kalki deserves some consideration for having slaved over this stuff for at least as long as I've been on Wikiquote. My participation was more of a lark that this incident has simply made insufficiently interesting for me to remain involved in — for now. I was content with Kalki choosing quotes for the time being; I'll be content to wait for everyone to develop and shake out the system. (I expect that answer satisfies no one but me, but that's where I'm at.) ~ Jeff Q(talk) 17:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it is generally a wise and prudent policy to "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.", but while nearly always being liberal in what I accept from others, I also believe that there are occasions when it can be appropriate to be radical in what you do— but it is often likely to be controversial, and sometimes even dangerous. I knew that I might be doing something that would be controversial in my decision yesterday, but honestly did believe that had more time been available for consideration, the consensus would have likely favored the new addition.

I have actually been quite pleased and relieved to fade more and more into the background here, and not remain quite so dominantly involved as I formerly was. I also have become quite a bit busier with my work on other things, and am very glad that there are now several admins with generally a much higher level of involvement than mine. The project has become much busier now, but at the beginning of the year, and indeed for much of the time since becoming an admin in January 2004 I had been doing a great deal of the general upkeep without any other admins involved.

Since the new selection system for QotD which I created has begun to be developed, I no longer feel absolutely impelled to even provide suggestions, if there are quotes available for a day that I feel deserve at least a "3". I do believe that as the system matures there will eventually be dozens of high quality candidates for each day, rather than merely the one or two ideas that are often all that have been suggested for some days.

I still usually devote at least an hour each day, and often quite a bit more, to seeking candidates for the quotes of the day, thus far usually limiting myself for days of the upcoming week, and developing pages for people that we do not yet have pages for. Prior to having other admins around the time I spent monitoring the project and working upon things for it had been at a much higher level; I tried to personally monitor it most of the day, and still do, but with less a sense of a need to do so.

Back in January, when Maveric149 initially made the very extensive and significant contribution of creating pages where the Quote of the Day could be updated automatically with quotes selected in advance, I immediately saw that this provided a means for more people to become involved in the selection process, rather than have a single admin making the decisions, and made comments regarding that idea. I soon realized that my initial ideas would likely be far too complicated and burdensome in many ways, and eventually came up with the general idea of the system of pages for each month that is now being developed. I was busy enough with other things that implementing this idea never reached a sufficient level of urgency until MosheZadka's prompting finally motivated me to create the first page to begin developing the procedures in June.

I have usually referred to the current system as a "ranking" one, rather than a "voting" one, because in using it as a gauge of indications for making selections I have not employed any precise mathematical calculations based on either "averages" or "total points" because I believe that would impel far more burdensome and complicated considerations and arrangements on everyone's part, and believe that there are not yet enough people involved to warrant anything like that. Even if there were, either of these methods has it's drawbacks, and could conceivably produce very absurd results that please very few. Thus far the quotes that rank highly enough in someone's opinion to be given at least a "4" or many 3s have usually been those that I have most focused upon, and believe that this is a generally good guideline for anyone who becomes involved in the selection processes. I noted from the beginning that I believed final selections should always be the responsibility of administrators, and not absolutely tied to the rankings of suggestions. Though I believe that any clear preferences indicated by the rankings should generally be followed, I could conceive of many circumstances where this would not be the case, and always thought that last minute changes should be allowed for many reasons, including response to newsworthy events, such as the death of notable people.

"TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others." ~ Jon Postel

For August 6th I had been quite pleased with this leading candidate and had looked forward to using it, but seeking to have a better alternative than the Dr. Strangelove quote to commemorate the Hiroshima bombing, I was prompted to do a bit more searching. Coming across the Eisenhower quote which I was already familiar with, it struck me as a very good candidate, that I initially intended to simply post as a future alternative. Late in the day, however, I suddenly realized that it was actually the 60th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, and this prompted me to give it much stronger consideration. Had it been the 59th anniversary, or the 61st, I very probably would not have been impelled to make so bold a decision, but such is the power of the "decades" upon the mind, that I thought this was clearly both a notable enough event, and a rare enough anniversary that it shouldn't be skipped without comment. It appears that others think I was mistaken in that belief.

This is not a case where I rejected a quote of which I disapproved, for one that I preferred, but a case where I truly thought the circumstances were significant enough to make a decision that I was very uncomfortable with— to neglect the current standings, of a quote I myself thought very good, and to give preference to a very late entry. Being the only person thus far involved in making the final selections, I noted that I was not adamant in my own resolve to stick with this decision, and that if anyone objected in the admittedly short time before the deadline I left it open for others to rescind my choice. I noted in the comment when I posted that it was a "late entry: any admin can change this to TPC [sic] quote before 0000UT if they wish" . I actually had been in such a rush at the time, that I forgot to apply the standard protection to the page, and anyone could have actually edited it until about an hour after the deadline, when I had a few minutes to make contact again, through a Wi-fi connection, and noticed my oversight.

I do not think it likely that matters of potential controversy will ever become a daily or even a weekly problem, but some level of conflict or ambiguity might easily be expected to occur once or twice a month. If people believe that I have been truly irresponsible in making the particular decision that I did, based on my own snap judgment of the relative importance of events commemorated, a move to the forming of a selection "committee" of an odd number of admins (at least 3) might be in order. This group could be responsible for make the final decisions on matters when there are cases that are clearly very close, or when potentially strong candidates relating to significant events are suggested by anyone at a very late stage. If sufficient contact could not be made on a late suggestion, the existing preference would be used.

I would like to remain a person involved in this, but would be ready to resign from making further selections, if that were to become the consensus view on things. In any event, I believe MosheZadka, whose activity in the project has been extensive, and whose preferences seem to diverge greatly from my own in many regards would be good candidate to counterpoint many of my views.

I believe that JeffQ who remains one of the most significantly involved contributors to the project, would be another excellent candidate, if he wishes to accept the task.

I also wish to note that even before posting it, I realized that the quote that I selected might be assumed by some to indicate a "pacifist" social agenda on my part. Though I don't approve of needless animosities, and much prefer peaceful and rational resolutions of disputes, I am not a pacifist. I also very much realize that the conditions of war are usually not very conducive to rational and entirely well reflected measures on anyone's part; and for that reason, as well as many others, the initiation of active hostilities should generally be avoided. In the conditions of war that existed at the time, the decisions that were made by the top political leaders involved are not entirely surprising, and no doubt seemed to themselves, and to many others to this day, to have been entirely justified. I do however agree with Eisenhower and some other major military leaders of that time, that the dropping the atomic bomb was not a military or strategic necessity, and that at the time there even were any top people in the military who thought this to be the case is a relatively little known fact that I believed deserved a place of note on this particular anniversary.

Decisions that are not merely mechanical ones are always complex. Stated or unstated, it is a fact that there are always far more things involved in any decision than can be stated, and often many more things to take into consideration than can be made immediately apparent to everyone.

In writing the above comment, I just realized that though I had intended to spend some time today simply collecting more quotes on Hiroshima and other subjects, my decision yesterday has impelled me to spend quite a bit of time making the basis of my decision more plain, and offering ideas for further refinement of the processes by which quotes are selected. I have been, and remain, an advocate of openness and flexibility in many matters, and seek to avoid the laying down of too rigid a structure at any level. I do not expect the processes in selecting the QotD to be perfected in the next few days or weeks, but in the months ahead I think a generally satisfactory system can be devised. ~ Kalki

The following quotation was not selected on the 6th, which caused some controversy. I am placing it here, as the leading candidate on this date prior to this deals with nuclear weapons, which relates to the quote which I judged more topical on that date. As JeffQ has already made the point that tying quotes to events upon dates should not be taken as an absolute, a point with which I agree, I am placing it here, to hopefully compensate for what some have taken to have been an improper action on my part. ~ Kalki 12:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others." ~ Jonathan B. Postel, RFC 793, entire text of section 2.10

PREVIOUS RANKINGS: FOR THE 6th:

3 121a0012 03:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC) (this one would also be worth a four if I had more than one to give)

RANKINGS FOR THE 9th: (if people want to register any changes in their rankings)

4 Kalki 12:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC) I believe that it is an EXCELLENT quote, and was an excellent proposal for the 6th, "In general, an implementation must be conservative in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior." is another similar statement by Postel that I agree with; applying such ideas in general to life, but not necessarily as absolutes is a very wise policy, and I believe it wiser to be nearly always be liberal in "accepting" things than to nearly always be conservative in "doing" things.

There is simply no point in participating in the QOTD "process" as it presently stands. I'll just crawl back into my hole and not bother the great elevated minds at work. 121a0012 01:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

hi, I'm Avichai from the HE:WQ. We have a "Quote of the day" too, but because we are still little, and because the " 0:00 UTC" is 3 am in israel, we usually refresh the quote at 11:00 or later. now, MosheZ pointed me to the "purge" link you have and I've wanted to put the same link in our site but then I've had another idea. could you purge our main page in the same link that you purge yours? I mean that in one click (yours) yours and ours main pages will be refreshed. is it possiable? anyway this is our link, and I'm sorry for the poor english. thanks Avichai 20:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Maverick149 did all of the original "automation" setup here for Quote of the Day links back in January, and I am not sure about the purge functions that might be involved. Setting up a "purge link" should work on any page one wishes it to, but I did not set up any "automatic" purge to operate here and rarely do a manual purge myself. I don't see that it would be necessary or useful to link the purge of a page on the Hebrew Wikiquote to one here, and a setting up at least one page with such a "purge link" on the Hebrew project would probably be sufficient. ~ Kalki 22:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I've just read All Faith is false, all Faith is true: Truth is the shattered mirror strown In myriad bits; while each believes his little bit the whole to own., Richard Francis Burton. In the past, I had read a bigger quotation attributed to Plutarch, something like truth was a mirror in heaven, the mirror shattered falling on earth, and each one who finds a little bit that mirrors his beliefs, thinks that this is the whole truth. I did a google search and I found this quotation also attributed to Epicure and quoted as a persian fable. Do you have any idea about Burton's source? Thanks! Matia.gr 12:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Though the metaphor has been used many times, and probably has its roots among the ancient philosophers (such as Epicurus, whom Plutarch might have referred to), Burton's poetic phrasing of it is original to him. Besides "broken mirrors", and "facets of a great jewel" one of the most ancient of the metaphors emphasizing a reality filled with "fragmentary glimpses of the whole" were those of India referring to "the net of Indra":

In the Heaven of Indra, there is said to be a network of pearls, so arranged that if you look at one you see all the others reflected in it. In the same way each object in the world is not merely itself but involves every other object and in fact IS everything else. "In every particle of dust, there are present Buddhas without number." ~ Sir Charles Eliot

Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out indefinitely in all directions. in accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel at the net's every node, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars of the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that the process of reflection is infinite ~ The Avatamsaka Sutra as quoted in Hua-Yen Buddhism : The Jewel Net Of Indra (1977) by Francis H. Cook

It seems fairly hypocritical of you that you give other people's suggestions low votes of 1 or 2 with the reasoning being that there is "no clear correlation with the date," when the MAJORITY of your submissions suffer that same defecit (yet you give them a 3.) It seems a transparent attempt to discredit other people's suggestions in order to get your own approved.

The proposed policy of generally correlating the suggestions with the date is one that has been in play since June when the current system of making proposals was begun. Since that time I believe nearly all of my own proposals have had some correlation with the date or current events, and I had been strongly inclined to correlate quotes to the dates and current events long before that, when I was the only person involved in selecting them.

I believe that I have given a few submissions of others that had no correlation to the date a 3 or even a 4 (or considered them worthy of such, and like many which do have such correlation I have not added an explicit ranking of my own). If I give a quotation a 1 it is not merely because it has no correlation to the date: it is because I honestly don't think it very worthy of attention. If I give a quote a 2 it is one that I consider good enough that I might give a 3 if it did have some correlation, and if I give it a 3 it is one that I perhaps could give a 4 if this were so.

I generally prefer quotes relating to a persons birth date to those related only by a death date, and would much prefer those of great quality with immediate relevance to BOTH historical and current events, but I realize that this is just an ideal situation, and one cannot depend upon finding such quotations with regularity. ~ Kalki 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Kalki, I don't know what your schedule is on updating "New pages", but I thought I'd point out that in less than 48 hours, one of the current ones, Status Quo, stands a good chance of being deleted. I thought you might want to do another update before we get a red link in this rather visible list. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 00:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've no real schedule for it... and any administrator is welcome to change them at any time, but I will get to this tonight or tomorrow. ~ Kalki 00:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I was pleased to add him, and I wish that I had the time to add more people than I have been lately. There are quite a few people that I have been gradually collecting and organizing material on (in my own text files), but his addition was as someone prompted by your recent proposal to quote something about Superman to honor Siegel's birthday. I ended up opting for something from Superman: The Movie such as you first suggested, but at least we have a base to build upon for more Siegel quotes. ~ Kalki 05:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on the Led Zeppelin page, among many others — you've contributed much good work over the months you have been here. If you have any interest in being an admin I will put your name up on the Wikiquote:Requests for adminship page. I usually like to get some sense of whether someone wants it or not. There aren't any actual duties involved beyond that of any other user, but one can revert vandalism a little easier, edit protected pages, and block any vandal that is being a persistent nuisance. ~ Kalki 14:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to act as an admin. I've enjoyed working on the site ever since I've found it. I feel that I'm still learning all the nuances of how everything works, but I do feel that I can contribute. Even now, I feel a bit of a sense of ownership and try to keep the pages clean and free of vandalism. I'd be honored.UDScott 15:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your note of appreciation. One of the things I like about wikis in general is that people can contribute only as they have time and interest. My problem is really one of personal expectations, which I'm badly failing right now (and not just on Wikiquote and Wikipedia). I'm sorry my self-dissatisfaction bled over into my RFA vote on UDScott, but I felt it necessary to point out a bit of hypocrisy with my concern about maintenance work, which usually is a factor for adding sysops. I am very worried that we are getting further behind on such matters, and we don't have enough folks participating in maintenance to avoid significant impact when folks take time off, as they ought to be able to do whenever they wish. But I don't really see a solution to this in the near future. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 08:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)